Adam Wakefield v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
09A04-1609-CR-2063
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 3, 2017Background
- On May 9, 15, and 19, 2015, Walmart asset-protection employees observed Adam Wakefield and co-defendant Kenny Purvis (and others) on surveillance selecting new video games, concealing them in used Walmart bags, and leaving without paying; empty security/game boxes and cut cellphone packaging were discovered in the store.
- On May 19 officers stopped Wakefield in the store with a cart containing nine video games; Purvis and another accomplice were also detained. A search of a red pickup (driven by Purvis) found eight new copies of Witcher 3 in a Walmart bag.
- Wakefield admitted intent to steal and that Purvis drove him to Walmart multiple times; Wakefield also admitted stealing ~20 games previously. Purvis had been selling unopened new games on Facebook at low prices.
- Wakefield was tried by jury and convicted of Level 5 corrupt business influence, Level 5 conspiracy to commit theft, and Level 6 theft; he admitted habitual-offender status and received an aggregate 12-year sentence.
- On appeal Wakefield challenged admission of mug shots, Facebook screenshots of Purvis’s sales posts, and hearsay testimony that Purvis said the games in the truck were stolen, claiming irrelevance, prejudice, and hearsay/fundamental error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of mug shots | State: mug shots taken at arrest were admissible and non-prejudicial | Wakefield: mug shots irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial; suggest criminal history | Admitted; any probative value small but prejudice minimal and not fundamental error |
| Admission of Facebook posts/screenshots | State: evidence shows Purvis led an organized scheme and establishes pattern/enterprise | Wakefield: Facebook evidence irrelevant to him and overly prejudicial/confusing | Admitted; relevant to proving enterprise and pattern for corrupt-business-influence statute |
| Testimony that Purvis said games in truck were stolen (hearsay) | State: statement corroborates other evidence of thefts | Wakefield: inadmissible hearsay; fundamental error because no contemporaneous objection | Even if hearsay, admission was harmless given Wakefield’s admissions and other evidence; not fundamental error |
| Cumulative error (mugshots + hearsay + Facebook) | State: cumulative effect not prejudicial | Wakefield: combined evidence denied due process | No cumulative fundamental error; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2006) (explains narrow scope of fundamental-error exception)
- Wheeler v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1111 (Ind. 2001) (discusses prejudicial inference from mug shots and when they are objectionable)
- Jackson v. State, 50 N.E.3d 767 (Ind. 2016) (requires proof of continuity/pattern to establish racketeering enterprise)
- Robinson v. State, 56 N.E.3d 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (evidence of continuity helps show a pattern for corrupt-business-influence)
- Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (fundamental-error doctrine is available only in egregious circumstances)
- Sciaraffa v. State, 28 N.E.3d 351 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (standard of review for admissibility of evidence)